Biological Leninism

This is the first of three essays on the topic of Biological Leninism, the organizational principle of the contemporary left. You can find the second part here, and the third part here.

It’s 100 years now since the Russian Revolution. The Soviet Union. Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Leninism. It’s been 100 years already, but you realize how present the whole thing remains when you look at the press these days. People are still praising or damning the revolution. As if it mattered anymore. As if it were something more than history. As if the left and right of today had remotely anything in common with the left and right of Lenin’s day.

I won’t praise Lenin, an evil man. But great men are often quite evil. I’m not very interested in Lenin, the man; but I’m very interested in Leninism. Lenin is very dead (if not yet buried, I wonder what Putin is waiting for); but Leninism is quite alive. And the Western press has just realized that China, the second power in the world, in place to become the first in a few years, is a Leninist state. It’s taken 5 years of Xi Jinping shouting every day about the Leninist orthodoxy of the Communist Party of China for people to realize. Now the West is scared.

The West is scared because Leninism is effective. Yes, sure, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991; but lasting 74 years is no mean feat. And at any rate, the very establishment of the Soviet Union was a superhuman feat. It was something amazing, and amazed was the whole intelligentsia of the Western world for many decades. The kind of people who read my blog might not realize this, but Marxism was huge. Still is, really. Marxism completely captured the intellectual classes of the whole world for over a century. In China it’s still the official orthodoxy, taught in schools. In the West it’s still with us, if in the morphed form of Cultural Marxism.

It’s a staple of the right to speculate about why intellectuals hate capitalism. Reagan had a lot of quips about it. As usual, the right was good at cracking jokes, but it just never understood the problem. Which is why it lost, and keeps losing, and now we have gaymarriage and black transexuals running for office.

To understand Marxism you have to understand the world Marx lived in. 1848. The Liberal Revolutions. Europe had gone a long way since feudalism, through the absolutist wars of the 17th century, the rise of the modern state, and then the series of liberal revolutions starting in France in 1789 all up to 1848. A common thread on all this history is the rise of the bureaucratic state. Feudalism is a very natural form of government. It’s basically transposing the hierarchy of a conquering army into peacetime. China started like that, 1046 BC. The German tribes that conquered Western Rome also run like that. The king at war becomes the king at peace. The generals become counts. The colonels become earls. Everyone gets a peace of land, a set of rules of behavior, a set of duties of fealty.

It works pretty well at keeping loyalty. It’s not perfect, of course, after generations pass, the original ties of loyalty between army buddies aren’t quite the same. But it worked reasonably well. Feudalism in both China and Europe lasted about 1,000 years. The problem with feudalism is that it’s really hard to get anything done. It’s hard to raise taxes, it’s hard to get anything built. Everybody is very zealous about their inherited status and they won’t tolerate the smallest change. Then the Ottomans come in and the most free and decentralized Kingdom of Hungary is slaughtered at Mohacs.

A state, like any organization, but even more so, wants to get things done. It wants to grow, expand its power and influence. And so feudalism led to absolutism. And absolutism led to liberalism. Liberal states were strong, had armies of bureaucrats and tax revenues that feudal states could only dream of. But while they were effective, they were a mess. Feudalism is good at generating loyalty. Liberalism is awful at that. And loyalty is very important. The fundamental problem of politics is the distinction between friend and foe, said Schmitt. A friend is someone who is loyal.

The 19th century, which destroyed the Ancien Regime in Europe, was an economic and scientific golden era, but politically it was a mess. A revolution every decade, governments which lasted months, huge scandals every week. Elections were a violent and chaotic affair. If anything got done at all it was because the political chaos gave way to economic freedom, and the private sector got things done. A lot of things done. But the intellectuals weren’t cool with that. Intellectuals are always the reserve army of the bureaucracy. They want the government to get things done.

With all the scientific advances of the last centuries, the 18th and 19th century intellectuals were just brimming with excitement with all the things they could get done. All those plans of social engineering. Utopia on earth! It just seemed so feasible. And yet they could never pull it off through the political process. They just couldn’t pull it off. The politicians and bureaucrats just weren’t loyal enough. Constant factionalism and infighting made any real reform impossible.

Until Leninism, that is. Now Leninism is most likely mislabeled. Lenin did indeed found the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. But Lenin died in 1924. And the Soviet Union was still a huge mess in 1924. It was Stalin, general secretary of the CPSU since 1922 who, through the means we all know, really built the Communist Party and stabilized the Soviet government. Stalinism is used to refer to his brutal purges and his approach to criminal justice, but it would be more accurate to use Stalinism to refer to what we today call Leninism; the structure of rule of single-party Communist regimes.

Say what you will about the Soviet Union: the Communist Party was loyal. They got things done. Every crazy and stupid thing that the Politburo approved got done. Yes, it took a while to achieve that result. Stalin had to kill a lot of people. But it wasn’t through sheer terror and cruelty that the Communist Party worked. The Communist Party had a system. Which worked. It still works today in China. You might have noticed how people in the West today talk about China in these same terms. China gets things done, it does them fast and cheap. China got the world’s biggest high-speed rail system in the time that it takes to dig a tunnel in Boston. And for not that much more money. That’s not a coincidence. That’s Leninism at work.

Any country has a ruling class. What I call “loyalty” you could also call asabiya; the coherence of the ruling class as such. Their ability to stick with each other and gang up, keeping the structure of rule stable. Feudalism got that; the nobility was the ruling class, they formed a society very much separate from that of the peasants, and they took much care that their rule was never contested. The destruction of that world by enlightened liberals resulted in a ruling class which was orders of magnitude less cohesive and orderly. You might be a libertarian and think that is a good thing, and you may have a point. But any organization wants to fight entropy and ensure its stability and reproduction. Liberalism historically has shown itself incapable of that. Leninism was the first solution to that problem.

Leninism is, of course, applied socialism. Socialism was huge before Leninism was even a thing, and that Marxism was and is still popular is not due only to Soviet patronage. Socialism works by hacking the Social Calculus Module that humans have in our brains. Remember, humans care deeply about status. Status is what drives human behavior. Everybody works to achieve more status, and to avoid losing status. Socialism of course sells egalitarianism. It tells people with low status that they can get some more. The Industrial Revolution had forced millions of peasants into the cities, and they all felt they had lost status in the process. Economists will tell you that the standard of living of industrial workers (according to some measures) had actually improved. And that may be so, but the workers didn’t think so, and they were pissed.

So these socialists come by and tell them they have this plan to make them gain status, big time. That was huge. Yes, sure, Christianity had also started promising the meek that they were morally higher than rich people; they’d all go to heaven unlike those perfid rich guys. But that didn’t translate into actual, real-world status. Socialism was promising actual goods. And so it became huge. It’s still huge. It’s pretty much catnip for humans. It’s instant check-mate.

Socialism works not only because it promises higher status to a lot of people. Socialism is catnip because it promises status to people who, deep down, know they shouldn’t have it. There is such a thing as natural law, the natural state of any normally functioning human society. Basic biology tells us people are different. Some are more intelligent, more attractive, more crafty and popular. Everybody knows, deep in their lizard brains, how human mating works: women are attracted to the top dogs. Being generous, all human societies default to a Pareto distribution where 20% of people are high-status, and everyone else just has to put up with their inferiority for life. That’s just how it works.

Socialism though promised to change that, and Marx showed they had a good plan. Lenin then put that plan to work in practice. What did Lenin do? Exterminate the natural aristocracy of Russia, and build a ruling class with a bunch of low-status people. Workers, peasants, Jews, Latvians, Ukrainians. Lenin went out of his way to recruit everyone who had a grudge against Imperial Russian society. And it worked, brilliantly. The Bolsheviks, a small party with little popular support, won the civil war, and became the awesome Soviet Union. The early Soviet Union promoted minorities, women, sexual deviants, atheists, cultists and every kind of weirdo. Everybody but intelligent, conservative Russians of good families. The same happened in China, where e.g. the 5 provinces which formed the southern Mongolian steppe were joined up into “Inner Mongolia autonomous region”, what Sailer calls “consolidate and surrender”.

In Communist countries pedigree was very important. You couldn’t get far in the party if you had any little kulak, noble or landowner ancestry. Only peasants and workers were trusted. Why? Because only peasants and workers could be trusted to be loyal. Rich people, or people with the inborn traits which lead to being rich, will always have status in any natural society. They will always do alright. That’s why they can’t be trusted; the stakes are never high for them. If anything they’d rather have more freedom to realize their talents. People of peasant stock though, they came from the dregs of society. They know very well that all they have was given to them by the party. And so they will be loyal to the death, because they know it, if the Communist regime falls, their status will fall as fast as a hammer in a well. And the same goes for everyone else, especially those ethnic minorities.

Ethnics were tricky though, because they always had a gambit which could increase their status even further: independence. Which is why both Russia and China soon after consolidating the regime started to crack down on ethnics. Stalin famously purged Jews from the Politburo, used WW2 to restore most of the Tsar’s territory, and run such a Russia-centered state that to this day people in Kyrgyzstan speak Russian. The same in China, a little known fact of the Cultural Revolution was the huge, bloody purge in Mongolia and the destruction of many temples in Tibet. After that was done with, the Communist party became this strong, stable and smooth machine. The Soviet economy of course worked like shit, and that eventually resulted in the collapse of the system. But as China has shown, central planning is orthogonal to Leninist politics. China, of course, had to know. It had been running a centralized bureaucracy for thousands of years. Leninism was just completing the system.

So again, the genius of Leninism was in building a ruling class from scratch and making it cohesive by explicitly choosing people from low-status groups, ensuring they would be loyal to the party given they had much to lose. It worked so well it was the marvel of the intellectual classes of the whole world for a hundred years.

Meanwhile, what was the West doing? The West, that diehard enemy of worldwide Communism, led by the United States. What has been the American response to Leninism? Look around you. Read Vox. Put on TV. Ok, that’s enough. Who is high status in the West today? Women. Homosexuals. Transexuals. Muslims. Blacks. There’s even movements propping up disabled and fat people. What Progressivism is running is hyper Leninism. Biological Leninism.

When Communism took over Russia and China, those were still very poor, semi-traditional societies. Plenty of semi-starved peasants around. So you could run a Leninist party just on class resentments. “Never forget class-struggle”, Mao liked to say. “Never forget you used to be a serf and you’re not one now thanks to me”, he meant.

In the West, though, by 1945, when peace and order was enforced by the United States, the economy had improved to the point where class-struggle just didn’t work as a generator of loyalty. Life was good, the proletariat could all afford a car and even vacations. Traditional society was dead, the old status-ladders based on family pedigree and land-based wealth were also dead. The West in 1960 was a wealthy, industrial meritocratic society, where status was based on one’s talent, productivity and natural ability to schmooze oneself into the ruling class.

Of course liberal politics kept being a mess. No cohesion in a ruling class which has no good incentive to stick to each other. But of course the incentive is still out there. A cohesive ruling class can monopolize power and extract rents from the whole society forever. The ghost of Lenin is always there. And so the arrow of history kept bending in Lenin’s direction. The West started to build up a Leninist power structure. Not overtly, not as a conscious plan. It just worked that way because the incentives were out there for everyone to see, and so slowly we got it. Biological Leninism. That’s the nature of the Cathedral.

If you live in a free society, and your status is determined by your natural performance; then it follows that to build a cohesive Leninist ruling class you need to recruit those who have natural low-status. In any society, men have higher performance than women. They are stronger, they work harder, they have a higher variance, which means a fatter right tail in all traits (more geniuses); and they have the incentive to perform what the natural mating market provides. That’s the patriarchy for you. Now I don’t want to overstress the biology part here. It’s not the fact that all men are better workers than women. In a patriarchy there’s plenty of unearned status for men. But that’s how it works: the core of society is the natural performance of men; those men will naturally build a society which benefits them as men; some men free-ride on that, some women get a bad deal. Lots of structural inertia there. But the core is real.

To get to the point: in 1960 we had a white men patriarchy. That was perfectly natural. Every society with a substantial proportion of white men will end up being ruled by a cabal of white men. Much of its biology; part of it is also social capital, good cultural practices accumulated since the 15th century. White men just run stuff better. They are natural high-status. But again, nature makes for messy politics. There is no social value on acknowledging truth: everybody can see that. The signaling value is in lies. In the unnatural. As Moldbug put it:

in many ways nonsense is a more effective organizing tool than the truth. Anyone can believe in the truth. To believe in nonsense is an unforgeable demonstration of loyalty. It serves as a political uniform. And if you have a uniform, you have an army.

The point again is, that you can’t run a tight, cohesive ruling class with white men. They don’t need to be loyal. They’ll do ok anyway. A much easier way to run an obedient, loyal party is to recruit everyone else. Women. Blacks. Gays. Muslims. Transexuals. Pedophiles. Those people may be very high performers individually, but in a natural society ruled by its core of high performers, i.e. a white patriarchy, they wouldn’t have very high status. So if you promise them high status for being loyal to you; you bet they’re gonna join your team. They have much to gain, little to lose. The Coalition of the Fringes, Sailer calls it. It’s worse than that really. It’s the coalition of everyone who would lose status the better society were run. It’s the coalition of the bad. Literal Kakistocracy.

There’s a reason why there’s so many evil fat women in government. Where else would they be if government didn’t want them? They have nothing going on for them, except their membership in the Democratic party machine. The party gives them all they have, the same way the Communist party had given everything to that average peasant kid who became a middling bureaucrat in Moscow. And don’t even get me started with hostile Muslims or Transexuals. Those people used to be expelled or taken into asylums, pre-1960. Which is why American Progressivism likes them so much. The little these people have depends completely on the Left’s patronage. There’s a devil’s bargain there: the more naturally repulsive someone else, the more valuable it is as a party member, as its loyalty will be all the stronger. This is of course what’s behind Larry Auster’s First Law of minority relations: the worse a group behaves, the more the Left likes it.

This is also why the Left today is the same Left that was into Soviet Communism back in the day. What they approve of today would scandalize any 1920s Leftist. Even 1950s Leftist. But it’s all the same thing, following the same incentives: how to build a cohesive ruling class to monopolize state power. It used to be class struggle. Now it’s gender-struggle and ethnic struggle. Ethnic struggle works in America because immigrants have no territorial power base, unlike in Russia or China. So the old game of giving status to low-status minorities works better than ever. It works even better, unlike Lenin’s Russia, America has now access to every single minority on earth. Which is why the American left is busy importing as many Somalis as they can. The lowest performing minority on earth. Just perfect.

If you think it can’t get worse than transexuals or pedophiles, you’re really not understanding how this works. Look at this NYT article: a black woman, ex-con, convicted of murdering her own 4 year old son. She served 20 years in prison, which she spent studying sociology or something. After leaving prison, she applied to study a PhD at Harvard, which rejected her. Progressives were up in arms. How could you!

Go to the link, and look at that woman. Look at that face. She never expressed any remorse over killing her children. She lied about it in the PhD application. She disposed of the body and never told the cops where her son’s corpse is! This is utter and complete psycho. Nobody in their right mind would want anything to do with this woman. But that’s precisely the point. In most human societies before 1900 she would have been killed, legally or extralegally. But precisely this kind of person, someone who should in all justice be the lowest status person on earth; that’s exactly the people that the Left wants on its team. You can count on her extreme loyalty to any progressive idea that the party transmits to her. And so, yes, of course, she finally got her PhD, at New York University. And unlike 97% of PhD students out there, you can bet on her getting a full tenured professorship very soon.

Yes, it’s all madness, but it works. It really works like a charm. The richest parts of America, California and New York, are now a one-party state. America has legislation which forces every private enterprise of size to have a proportion of women, of black people and sexual deviants; who of course know they don’t belong there, and thus are extremely faithful political commissars. More faithful than the actual official political commissars that Communist China has also in their private companies.

And Biological Leninism is extremely powerful overseas too. The same way that Soviet Communism all had natural fifth-columns across the world, with industrial workers forming parties and all doing Moscow’s bidding across the West; American Biological Leninism is also an extremely strong means of agitation all over the world.

The United States has been the only superpower on earth since 1991. But that’s changing of late, with China’s growth into almost economic parity with the US, and Russia growing a pair, plenty of countries are now not following USG’s line. Southeast Asia is now pretty much China’s backyard. So now the United States is running an agitation campaign all over the world trying to undermine Chinese and Russian influence. As I’m most familiar with China, it’s very obvious what the USG line is. Appealing to women and homosexuals to become their fifth column. And it’s working. Every single article you see out there by a Chinese writing about how China should be more progressive (i.e. more American) is written by either a woman or a homosexual.

I read this article a while ago, which is infuriating. It’s about a particle accelerator that China is building. A Chinese-American writer interviews the head scientist there: and all she does is undermine his project, saying how Communist censorship means the whole project is tainted. The guy doesn’t get it. Why are you doing this to me, aren’t you a fellow Chinese?

No, she’s not. You know what she is? An ugly woman on her thirties. I know China well and ugly women on their thirties are very much not high-status in China today. Unlike in the West, where they’re the voluntary thought police, and you can’t even look at them. So of course any Chinese, or Russian, or Saudi, or Indonesian ugly woman in her thirties is, to the extent that she’s given access to US propaganda, going to become a fifth column against her country’s independence. And of course the same goes for ethnic minorities, the dumber the better. You want to get funding as a China expert in Western academia? You better be researching about Uyghurs or Tibetans. Those dumb and hostile minorities. So much more important than the oldest civilization on earth.

The question of course is how Biological Leninism is going to evolve. Both Soviet and Chinese Leninism changed a lot during their tenure. Stalin purged the party very hard, and after some decades, when all the memories of the pre-Soviet era were gone, and their power was secure, the CPSU started promoting high-performing (by the requirements of a political party, not a rocket science department, that is) Russian males. Which didn’t care much when the whole Soviet state collapsed. I guess they’re doing quite ok right now. Same in China: today the CPC is by no means a peasants and workers party. It’s a best-guy-of-the-class party. Loyalty is not ensured by the threat of landowners coming back to enserf them and their children; it’s ensured with a next-gen surveillance and propaganda apparatus. Note that both Russia and China kept class-struggle as the official ideology which everybody was (and is) forced to parrot incessantly to keep their jobs.

But exactly that is what makes it vulnerable to progressive attacks. I just blogged about how women and minorities have even less power than before in China. Let alone sexual deviants. No gay politicians in China. That alone makes a huge constituency, hundreds of million strong, of people in China that would prefer a Progressive government. That’s the people who America is now addressing, unlike the previous strategy of selling democracy and its free economy to the Chinese middle class. Those don’t look so good right now that the Chinese middle class arguably has a better standard of living that America’s. Certainly less stressful.

Let’s assume (hope) that America’s Coalition of the Fringes doesn’t succeed in destabilizing foreign countries. How is it going to evolve though? Again as I said, Russia and China both stopped their peasant kakistocracies after a few decades. But they already had a nominal single party dictatorship, and centuries of tradition of autocracy to feed upon. America is still 20 years away (if not 10) from a single party regime; and it has a tradition of adversarial democracy which makes it very hard to stop the ratchet. Even if it stopped, the ideology is already there. In the best-case scenario where a Democratic single-party regime gets its Stalin to purge the country of agitators and stabilize the regime, you still get 2020 rhetoric frozen as the state religion: women are sacred, can’t even joke about them, Islam is peace, transexuals get to retroactively change their birth certificates. It’s not okay to be white. White men get to run the country but they must parrot all this stuff 5 times a day, facing at the Great Zimbabwe.

Or Brazilification collapses the economy and everything goes to hell. Yeah, that’s more likely.

Share this:

Related

254 responses to “Biological Leninism”

The point again is, that you can’t run a tight, cohesive ruling class with white men. They don’t need to be loyal. They’ll do ok anyway. A much easier way to run an obedient, loyal party is to recruit everyone else. Women. Blacks. Gays. Muslims. Transexuals. Pedophiles. Those people may be very high performers individually, but in a natural society ruled by its core of high performers, i.e. a white patriarchy, they wouldn’t have very high status. So if you promise them high status for being loyal to you; you bet they’re gonna join your team. They have much to gain, little to lose. The Coalition of the Fringes, Sailer calls it. It’s worse than that really. it’s the coalition of everyone who would lose status the better society were run. It’s the coalition of the bad. Literal Kakistocracy.

You see this attitude in microcosm everywhere you find progs – even if the specifics aren’t being enforced. Everything is to be tolerated except ideas that would help the people discussing them to be more functional. Every cultural message is “things that push you towards being functional are wrong and bad” (just off the top of my head – “slut shaming” – which they oppose would help lots of women avoid dangerous temptations). Progs pitch this as “liberating” – what it really is is making them better prog foot soldiers because it causes people to make natural mistakes that limit their futures. Individual example – Jessica Valenti. This is a review of her autobiography – https://medium.com/the-patriarch-tree/lessons-of-a-sex-object-4b57f666dec5. Tldr version – she was a smart (getting into Stuyvesant is not easy) middle class girl who – if the culture was set up to encourage virtue would have been very happy and productive. Instead she made terrible choices in her adolescence and instead she ruined her life and now she’s a prog foot soldier.

Not only do we have a natural kakistocracy – we also systemically destroy virtue intentionally. This reminds me of Charles Murray and his earnest imprecations to the ruling class that they’re ripping out social “guard rails” – and his naive worry that they’re doing it by accident.

This article leaves me with one resounding takeaway; for white males to attain a “loyalty level” in this new utopia, all individualism and creativity must be shelved in favor of a growing matriarchal collectivism. There isn’t enough soy milk on the planet to make this work.

Sir, your argumentation is excellent, but when you arrive to the part in which you describe the regime change in Russia and China, it becomes not very convincing.

Why did the coalition of thefringes stopped being a winning strategy in these countries? This is not explained in the text, except for just suggesting that after a total victory, the winning strategy is “forgotten”. I think this is a major flaw in this text and that you should address it.

The winning strategy wasn’t forgotten; they just didn’t need it anymore. They had already won. And once the Iron Law of Oligarchy kicks in, the ruling elite wants stability. Having fringes around agitating doesn’t quite help there.

I believe you can also add to your examples the case of Mexico. The revolutionaries also achieved a total victory several decades ago, developed a technocracy with able bureaucrats, and have successfully fended off all major attempts to conform a new coalition of the fringes.

I agree – its one of the best posts I’ve seen. As far as the winning strategy went, I think once the fringes had sufficiently been victorious, their next step would have to be to solidify their power. We might be seeing some version of that in Hollywood soon, as the angry feminist mob encounters the gay mafia.

I have long awaited the War of the Fellow Travelers. The Coalition of the Fringes is inherently unstable and cannot long exist as a governing coalition. The Bolsheviks eventually eliminated all the other contenders to power. I cannot tell you who will win among the fringe groups, but at least as between the Muslims and the gays, my money is on the suicide bombers.

The only thing I’d add is the prevalence of white male leftists of low sexual status. In a way they’re the reserve of actual competency that prevents a coalition of gays, blacks, and women from immediate collapse.

Their internal beliefs can be summarized as “once the Revolution happens, I’ll be as attractive as Chad and get as much pussy”. The most important thing to happen in recent memory is the alienation of low sexual status men from the left. These men tend to be pretty good at building bridges and making trains run on time.

I’ve known a fair number of quite hard lefties, straight white middle class males, who got laid like tile. “Naturals”. Magnificent to see these guys work.

But they were bitter because they didn’t have political power. The prog worldview gives those guys a framework where they’re morally superior to everybody who’s competent, and more competent and more “privileged” than any natural member of the Coalition of Defectives. They get to be the arbiter who, sitting on the throne of White Privilege, welcomes the defectives into heaven and casts their erstwhile fellow white people into the Pit.

To an essentially useless narcissist, it’s catnip to pose as the guy who rewards his inferiors and damns his betters.

Really enjoyed this article, and it’s one of the more memorable ones I’ve read on this blog (read just about every post). But there is only one gap that I did not see explained: white shitlibs.

I know several who are high income earners, smart, in stable relationships, and really don’t have a loyalty reason to be shitlibs. However, they are thoroughly devout in their religion.

These should be the kinds of people who would be ok in any society, yet seem completely brainwashed. Under the ideas espoused in this post, they shouldn’t be loyal to the Cathedral. Is it simply a matter of status, signaling this nonsense in the hope of career advancement? If not that, then what?

Yes, a great article meets a great question from “Guest”, and I agree that the baizuo phenomenon is the crux of our predicament. Spandrell points out many similarities between the baizuo and Lenin’s Leninism but it seems to me there is also a point of difference that is crucial.

Question: has there been a previous occurrence of baizuo? Specifically, a people who achieved (for their time) a high level of civilisation and prosperity through conquest and struggle but then worked hard for their own extinction by promoting social dissolution plus the importation of barbarians? Any candidate has to include the feature that the baizuo aren’t confined to the elite, they are pervasive throughout society. I don’t know of any that qualify so I proceed on the assumption that the baizuo really are a new phenomenon.

Something that happened about the same time as the baizuo was the Industrial Revolution – definitely a new thing under the sun. It meant that even poor people could have clean water and flush toilets, so infant mortality and deadly epidemics fell off a cliff. So I think an evolutionary explanation is plausible and fits what we know reasonably well. Supposing that sustained industrialised prosperity means the spread of mutations that would previously have been selected out, it makes sense that Western countries are most severely effected.

It also makes sense, if you’re playing “let’s roll the genetic dice for 150 years and see what comes out”, that previously prevalent traits are reduced or even reversed. The defining characteristic of the baizuo is the preference for the far and alien over the near and familiar, e.g. for Islam over Christianity. Similarly a disdain for tradition and the elevation of victimhood over heroism. All these reverse traits that put Western powers on top of the world in 1500 – 2000. I think the baizuo variant of Leninism is a symptom of dysgenic evolution. Perhaps the nemesis of Western capitalism wasn’t Lenin but Joseph Bazalgette!

I wrote about how the Japanese court in the 900s had a habit of hiring foreign barbarians as police (!), which resulted in the expected set of rebellions and havoc across the country. There’s also the An Lushan rebellion to the very xenophile Tang dynasty court.

But yes, we live in different times. Life is good enough that armed rebellions aren’t really a thing anymore, so the government playing foreigners against the majority can go on for decades without that much danger.

I think a lot of “urban white left” people actually come from screwed up backgrounds. Broken families (bad or weak fathers), smallish towns where they might have been picked on for being the nerd, etc. Their loyalty to legacy America was greatly diminished as a result.

The rest who come from normal backgrounds do it simply because that’s what gets you paid and laid.

We’re on the same page, then. I would argue (and have) that the Christian “meek > all” is the source material for this permutation. Your formulation is more compelling, though. Organizing the low to defeat one’s enemies is the game.

Spandrell: great post. To add to it, here are two major factors that may influence how things evolve:

1) Blockchain. This is the new Western libertarian religion we’ve been waiting for, and that you’ve been writing about. It outcompetes leftism on its own terms. It doesn’t just promise airy riches if you take over the government. Blockchain gets you cash money today if you buy and hold crypto, albeit not without some risk. It takes the startup technique of fake-it-till-you-make-it to the nth power and turns into an unstoppable engine for wealth creation. And it gives you the promise of destroying the government and remaking it tomorrow.

The Blockchain is the antidote to our century of Communism and it is building power very fast, not just in the US but across the globe. It is secular and it is converting many former SJW opponents to a “right wing” ideology on the basis of the only thing they truly respect: namely power, as reflected in the price of Bitcoin and all the other cryptos.

2) Baizuo. The obvious tit-for-tat play in return for exporting feminism and gay activism to China is for the Chinese to start funding “people of color” in the US to attack the white left and take over the Democrat party. A billion or two could go a very long way here. More Tom Perezes, more Keith Ellison, fewer Elizabeth Warrens.

asdf, your #1 sounds like breathless cheerleading. What I see happening down the road is governments will create their own blockchains and ban competing non-government cryptos under criminal penalty. The benefits for government to take this approach will be to totally destroy the black market economy and to allow governments to trace every transaction in the economy. This will result in much greater tax revenue and the end of privacy as we know it, as third parties will be able to trace your every purchase and market to you accordingly.

Governments are allowing non-government crypto to “flourish” currently in order to study the technology, as it is so new. This will not last. I’m with Jamie Dimon on this one.

> governments will create their own blockchains and ban competing non-government cryptos under criminal penalties

Ha! You vastly overestimate the competence of most governments and banks :) China and maybe Russia will survive. But every other existing large government is going to be killed or remade by the blockchain. Dimon too, he’s a dinosaur. His own head of Blockchain at JP Morgan openly rolls his eyes at him on Twitter. His own daughter does as well, because she’s gotten rich off Bitcoin! Smarter elites like Lagarde, Summers, and James Gorman all know what’s coming and have already switched sides.

Look at coinmarketcap.com. The space is at $200B now. The US government is run by imbeciles. No, they are not going to stop the Blockchain or even slow it down much.

1) [Tulip bulbs]. This is the new Western libertarian religion we’ve been waiting for, and that you’ve been writing about. It outcompetes leftism on its own terms. It doesn’t just promise airy riches if you take over the government. [Tulip bulbs] gets you cash money today if you buy and hold [bulbs], albeit not without some risk. It takes the startup technique of fake-it-till-you-make-it to the nth power and turns into an unstoppable engine for wealth creation. And it gives you the promise of destroying the government and remaking it tomorrow.

Wow. Probably one of the best articles you’ve made recently. Worth the wait.
It was interesting you mentioned the Chinese-American journalist who made the article you were talking about. I’ve seen a lot of that virtue signaling among some of the educated Chinese women, but they are usually graduate students in American colleges or have lived in America for some time.
But how much headway has the USG’s pozzing campaign had among the general Chinese population, or the students in China’s colleges, like Fudan or Tsinghua? I assumed the Chinese government was fighting against some of that, based on the previous blog posts you made…but it’s hard to say how successful they will be.

That’s……weird…..but to be honest, I’ve hardly ever seen other Chinese mention Sixth tone, and it caters to an English speaking audience…but yeah, I don’t get it either. Oh well. Who knows what Shanghai’s government is thinking.

The extent to which Leninist China, USSR etc. have been able to recover normal governmental functioning (some reasonable level of propaganda that must be regurgitated or at least not contradicted before everyone gets back to work, making the place run and making money) is the extent to which they severed their links with Western oligarchy and its organs.

And there’s your answer to how the US will evolve. Unlike China and Russia, where the degenerates who made up the new upper management and hangers on were largely externally propped up, the American equivalent is native and organic. It won’t go away without a collapse/civil war/massive dieoff due to sterility caused by careerism, homosexuality and VR porn/video games.

Oh great I get to use the favorite word of some people. I believe the Wall Street angle frequently quoted is a “canard”. Because in reality the largest funding of the Bolsheviks on Wall Street came from…(((Jacob Schiff))). Hardly who I think they want you to presume funded them. An interesting fact about this is here’s a picture of Jacob Schiff who was said to have died in 1920 and also here’s pictures of him with Lenin in 1923.

Read this post as a sort of addendum to Moldbug’s classic, “Technology, communism and the Brown Scare”, a thesis which I always thought he actually could have defended far more vigorously. As he put it, “America is a communist country. For workers and peasants, read: blacks and hispanics”; “For quite some time in America it’s been illegal to employ racists, sexists and fascists, and mandatory to employ a precisely calibrated percentage of women, workers and peasants. Because America is a free country and that’s what freedom means.” etc. An analysis very much elaborated on and seen to its conclusion in this post, whether that was the intention or not.

“Biological Leninism” — perfectly captures the essence of the beast. Not very catchy though. I’m partial to neo-Lysenkoism myself. Still feel a label which packs a better punch is waiting out there to be discovered.

Thank you for this post, you have a real knack for getting at the truth in such an elegant way.

You claims about how Westerners saw Marxism in the early days is true and so is their paralysis in the face of China as well.

Your arguments about building a party of the “fringes” is also on point.

What you have said about USG’s strategy against China is also correct.

A few critical points.

Using Aristotle’s four causes, there needs to be a set of distinctions draw regarding Leninism.

1: Form. (Centralism and one party dictatorship)
2: Matter (the people who make up the party).
3: The Means used (security, economic and political policy).
4: The Ends (Communism, Nationalism etc).

China has kept the Form but the Matter, Means and Ends have changed. This needs to be more clearly distinguished.

In short, Leninism (in NRx terms) is when corporation owns the country.

As for explaining why women, black, gays are selected, we wrote the following on the 451 blog:

“Our explanation is structural. It is (political) structure that determines culture and political psychology.

The short answer is that the High (Elites) use Low (Expendables – women, gays, blacks, Muslims) to disrupt, displace, degrade, defeat and destroy Middle (Essentials – Christians, Capitalists and Caucasians).

Now, this is not about race or religion. It is about power and Power. The pattern of High and Low against Middle is a universal feature of politics and war.

However, if your political structure is divided or incoherent (separation of powers, democracy) or when the Elite is weak (a dictator only starting out say like Stalin or Mao) then you get the things you associate with leftism.

The source of our arguments, ultimately, is Bertrand de Jouvenel’s On Power; Charles Tilly’s Coercion, Capital and State Formation 990 A.D – 1990; the Patron Theory of Politics by Reactionary Future and, of course, Mencius Moldbug.

The upshot of this diagnosis, is that the problem can be fixed. Fix the structure and you will have fixed the problem. No more Imperium In Imperio.”

We would also add in The Dictator’s Handbook by Bruce Mesquita (which you have read) for there you see how his “rules for ruling” explains what is going on.

How can this be, since parasitizing the middle class is the source of elite income? No middle class, no income. Also, a weak economy incapable of production just begs to be invaded; that would be counter to elite desires.

It might make sense to say the elite uses the low class to degrade and enslave the middle, to keep its nose to the grindstone – but not to destroy it.

Their theory of value assumes that value comes from exploitation of labor, rather than from the difference between the willingness to pay for a good or service and its cost to the consumer. They simply would not recognize the proposition that the middle class is the source of income. It would be as foreign to them as speaking Vulcan.

China had three dials to play with in 1978 and they only played with one – economics.

The Soviets picked the political dial and….well…..

Later, China kept the overall form of the political formula but the substance is slowly turning into nationalism.

As for the gays and women thing. That will really not make a difference. It offers no viable political change. China can always buy these kinds of upper-middle class people off or just punish a few of them.

China could allow, in the future, Shanghai to allow gay marriage. Big deal.

This is, as has been previously stated, an instant classic. It is not my intent to undermine this post, or any follow-up, but you seem to have stopped one iteration short of the logical conclusion here. These low versus high status gambits have worked because they have generated massive armies with everything to lose, but the biologically condemned are not exactly a fighting force. There is an army in America, killing itself from opiate overdose, waiting for a religion that restores their status, and to extract that status from their oppressors. European men aren’t just losing their status passively, they are having it wrenched from their hands by biological aberrations. Leninism (in any form) is ultimately outdated, because it optimizes for a large army. Any religion that includes a host of ex spec-ops, or even just infantry guys, willing to melt into the forest and wage war against Leninism will be victorious. Biological Leninism relies on mercenaries to do any actual fighting; it’s come full-circle to ancient Persia with its multi-cultural army. This also explains why the Cathedral seems to have become suddenly weak; they no longer possess a fighting force.

This is where historical China comes in handy. It’s not about the army. It’s about the bureaucracy, the civil service and all its apendixes.

China had a very well organized bureaucracy, run on exams and all that. The military sucked balls for most of its history; but it didn’t matter. You can avoid war with money, and it’s that bureaucracy which controlled all the economy. You couldn’t make a dime dealing with the ruling class. Say Confucius is an ass and nobody will buy your gadgets ever again.

That’s how the cathedral works: it controls employment. The majority of White men in heavy blue areas vote democratic. They must.

China also had obscure sects in the mountains, which then rebelled every now and then. It didn’t usually succeed, until it did. So yes, that’s a plan. But modern states have a lot of resources to make sure white men can’t organize.

Right, but we have an extremely well-trained, experienced fighting force, which is currently being kept out of employment by the bureaucracy. #Helicoptertwitter is a pretty good argument for the growing discontent/weaponization of closer-to-normie American men. The real question is whether there’s anything in the tank of Christianity, or if we need a complete overhaul.

I would say that effective breakout needs to demonstrate an alternate state of government with its own status ladder and able to provide wives for its members. In that, Benedictine Option might be the best hope atm.

Don’t focus so much on the trannies. They have a lots and lots of various ethnicities of brown colored males who are perfectly normal straight high T men supplying muscle and determination. They may not be very smart, but the left has the intellectuals on their side, too. Their weakness is a mismatch betwee these two, miscommunication, perhaps, an unwillingness of the Mara Salvatrucha types to listen to faggy white professors, but they do have both elements on their side and pretty much everything depends on whether they will be able to coordinate them or not.

An interesting point regarding Persia – which becomes even more salient when taking into account that the Sassanids had a large number of Muslim tribesmen in their army. I seem to recall that there are speculations that these elements were incited to defect at a pivotal point in one of the last great battles – something not without historical precedent.
Just like the Communists before them, Islam has been very willing to ally temporarily with useful idiots to get a foothold in the power structure.

So the lesson is the way to overthrow a country is always the same: put together a coalition of those out of power, tell them that they’re oppressed, and blame those in power. If you have to invest a new theory of oppression each time to fit the present circumstances, so be it.

Actually, the “tell them that they’re oppressed” step is optional. It is only required in a so-called civilized society that requires abstract conceptions of justice to sooth the conscience. In a pre-civilized society, you can take power just because you want it, you don’t need the additional step of coming up with an ad hoc theory of justice first.

Not really. If those people _could_ have power, why don’t they have it already? The strongest rule. Any system that oppresses the strong is inherently unstable, but once you get the strong into power it should be stable. The point is, rather, that the most stable power structure is the least meritocratic and the least conducive to civilization.

The point somewhat missing from Spandrell’s article is that having low status parents was only a necessary but not a sufficient requirement for having a career in Leninism. You could still just be a fourth-rate party nobody with the smallest office in the building with pauper parents. Rising required something else – a ruthless Machiavellian intelligence, building coalitions and crushing your competitors.

So under Leninism you have people with high verbal IQ focusing on undermining each other, and people with high visual-spatial IQ design MiG-29’s under the orders of the high verbal IQ people.

But everything we call civilization is based on high verbal IQ people finding out what needs to be done for the betterment of society, or at least for satisfying consumer demand, and giving the orders to the high visual-spatial IQ people.

This is really the issue, ultimately in every system it is the high verbal IQ people who rule. High verbal IQ is basically being “strong” in this context. In the best and the worst system. The difference is how – in the good system they figure people could use a better mousetrap or a Roman aqueduct in Athens and ask the techies to design it, in this sense it being meritocratic and in the worst system they rule because they managed to undermine the other high IQ guy.

This is really what it is about. A system is underminable precisely when the high verbal IQ people go meritocratic and actually start doing useful work. That is when a power hungry high IQ group can recruit the masses – because the currently ruling group focused on getting useful stuff done and not on controlling the masses.

Spandrell’s fine article is a mind bender. It is a reality-distortion field projector. It’s better than Moldbuggian—or worse, if you prefer, because it is more persuasive. I like it. To read it is to question one’s own sanity.

Within the context of the reality-distortion field, it seems to me that Dividualist asks several valid questions.

So, I’m a straight white male, a Christian, a (natural, ordinary, once-married) father of six, a state-licensed professional of no exceptional success, an annually truthful tax-return filer, a military veteran—in other words, a typical, fairly but not exceptionally high-visual-spatial-IQ brick in the crumbling pillar that holds up the roof of traditional Western society. I’m the sort of fellow who daily gathers up a fistful of litter while walking from his parked car to his desk in the morning, just because … I don’t really know why: because someone has to pick up the litter, I suppose. This being the case, what am I supposed to do about any of the problems/dynamics Spandrell and Dividualist illuminate? I mean, what am I supposed to do, other than just passively to appreciate the sheer perversity of it all?

Questioning your sanity is what what every intelligent man should be doing and not only from the political perspective, entirely apolitically, cognitive science, LessWrong.com and so on basically everybody who talks about the brain from a position of knowledge constantly says stuff that should absolutely question our sanity. It is just one application of it.

I don’t know Spandrell’s opinion, but from my viewpoint being a father of six, you are already doing what you should better than I do. (Father of one and not planning more.) Try to raise them in a way that they are going to be safe and useful for rebuilding things after the collapse. That is the best you can do.

Hope they inherit your intelligence. In case of boys, you have to put a strong drive behind that intelligence, mostly testosterone, make them lift weights and allow them to take risks. Teach them not to be misled by shit women say, like that they want a nice guy, make them learn about the true nature of women where her rational mind wants indeed a nice guy but her instincts want a criminal who will beat her and make the munderstand they will need some civilized version of those traits, some kind of dominance and authority and courage. Let them learn whatever they want to learn, as long as they are normal men that whatever will be technical anyway, but they should also learn practical skills for a collapse scenario. If you do this you have some perfect settler types, who also double as civilization-rebuilders after a collapse.

The girls will be a harder case. Inherited intelligence with natural female empathy makes women good at things like psychotherapists or doctors and similar working-with-people people but if they focus too much on work and not on kids then the inheritance of intelligence stops with them. They owe it to the world to birth some smart kids. However my GP doc, female, has 4 kids so not saying they should never work, some are good at harmonizing this. And the kids need a father, and a father who has the testosterone to not be a wimp will only commit if they show both some loyalty and yes, some submission. This will be a tough thing to accept but it is necessary. I don’t know how will I do it, personally, it depends on the situation.

Great post, and a useful elaboration of why the “Coalition of the Fringes” strategy has worked as well as it has in multiple places.

It’s worth pointing out, though, that there’s more than one way to create a loyal ruling class, and several of them could and have worked with the local equivalent of white men. The British Empire did it for a number of centuries and seemed to do all right. Many Chinese dynasties had revolutionary roots but quickly transitioned into efficient bureaucracies. (Now, certainly, one could claim that the mandarinate system relied on outsiders too, since it rotated around talented foreigners without local power bases, but at that point things start to look very different from a coalition of obese purple-hairs.)

The reason seems fairly clear – fringes are great at grabbing power, but aren’t actually good at getting things done. Thus if you care about getting things done, and your power is secure enough you’d expect to stay around and enjoy the rewards of getting things done, you ditch the fringes for a more effective ruling class. The Dengian Reaction was precisely an example of this – where the party, while officially mouthing the same platitudes, closed off “more revolutionary than thou” as a route to power.

So my pushback is that you’ve incisively described one way to gather power for revolutions, and then, in the dour Spandrell way we all know and love, jump to the claim that it’s the only power structure that works and that we’re therefore doomed.

Well, who is this. You’ve been missed sir. Thanks for coming by. You’re still invited to you-know-where.

I haven’t said that Fringe-armies are the only power structure that works. But I read history and that’s what’s been happening. I know we’re all looking for alternatives and I also hope we can find one. I have children too. I’m really not that gloomy myself, if anything because I am more exit-capable than most. But I do think it’s going to be painful, and the only way to alleviate that pain is to understand very well the process.

And also you’ll note that the American fringe coalition is way more deranged that anything in history. All revolutionary armies in history have recruited peasants and vagrants all manner of criminals and outcasts; but never have we seen disabled African transexuals given access to the ruling class.

Again (supplementing independent comment below) see my Notes Towards a New Way of Life in America, especially end of 3rd chapter and whole of the 4th. There are positive possibilities in a free society if you have the materials to work with (and we must work with the materials we have).

Your argument is well constructed. My sole objection is that the lumpen aka trash is no human material for carrying out a revolution. Only the middle class makes revolutions and seizes power. Homosexuals never in history carried out a organized rebellion and their number were not less a hundred years ago. Women were oppressed and enslaved everywhere and I know of no rebellion. Resolution, loyalty, trustworthiness, organizational capability are not their forte. There is no biological leninism, there is biological determinism.

Christianity was seen as the faith of women and slaves, yet it successfully ursuped the power structure throughout Europe. There is a lot to be said for soft power, especially as violence is increasingly denigrated.

That’s a myth. Most soldiers were into the Mithras cult, Christians copied the rituals, and it became the religion of soldiers. As for women, it was mostly the rich widows, as in Roman law a widowed woman did not own her wealth, just held it until it will be owned by her next husband and one of the few things she was allowed to do was to donate to churches. Combining muscle and money is a useful thing.

The closest model to yours is the one described in the The Germanization Of Early Medieval Christianity: it was the religion of the people of ambigious status: freed slaves who were good tradesmen and made good money but still bore that stigma, wives or widows of rich men, people who were both high and low status. People who were unsure what their status is.

Violence may be denigrated, as it always was, but if you ask me, America and others are spending billions in instruments of extreme violence because violence will never go away. North Korea is spending all its money on nuclear arms, preparing for violence, if not why?

Exactly! At the turn of 20th century, in Tsarist Russia, something like 60% or more of socialist/communist oriented parties consisted of (yes, Russian!) nobility, merchantry and intellectuals, including Jews, *not* the lumpen or peasants.

This brings to mind Turchin’s “overproduction of elites” thesis. I think that overproduction of elites can be stemmed naturally by two things: shrewd monarch (a la Ottoman sultan) or inspirational causes to get them out of the country in a beneficial way (for them). Certainly, Nicholai II was not the brightest bulb on the yolka and neither were his war causes status-elevating, inspirational and effective enough to engage/attract the nobility.

Homosexuals, women and the lumpen are not a force to be taken into account in a real street confrontation. Their protests can happen only in a totally artificial political regime, with armed police backing them. It is not a real thing, it is media circus.

The revolution already happened ~50 years ago. If the middle class are the ones who make revolutions, It would follow that a strong middle class would be the biggest threat to existing elites. It appears they want a societal structure similar to what many Latin American countries have.

OK, Biological Leninism describes very well how we got where we are. How will things proceed from here? When the coalition of the fringes is in power is see the following problems it will be facing:

Muslims will be more loyal to other Muslims than to non-Muslims, especially women, homosexuals, trannies etc. Moreover, the coalition is importing people from tribal societies. I don’t see why the should stop being tribal, so I expect them to be more loyal to their tribe (i.e. extended familiy) than to the coalition of the fringes. So the coalition cannot be as cohesive as the coalition Stalin built. For this reason alone it will not be able to work as well and get things done.

The other problem the coalition of the fringes will be facing is that its members need a minimum of intelligence and discipline to get things done. Homosexuals and pedophiles should be able to function as a ruling bureaucracy. Somehow I don’t see how Somalis can. The modern coalition is less capable than the old.

For these reasons, I expect this coalition to fail, and to fail much faster than the Soviet Union. The result will quite possibly be worse than Brazilification. Collapse yes, and probably a lot of violence.

What will replace it? Maybe local communities and warlords. In Western Europe, there are growing no-go zones in any major City. The police is unable, and perhaps also unwilling, to enforce the rule of the coalition of the fringes. Trannies and women are not high status in a no-go zone in Paris, Berlin or Oslo. These no-go zones are not law-less. They are ruled, if less effectively than the European norm, by violent men, clans and gangs, i.e. by the natural high status people of a patriachial society.

Presently only Muslims are refusing to be ruled by the elcted governments of the fringes. But as more and more Europeans are forced to recognoze that the elected government is powerless in their neighborhood, the idea of also just ignoring the elected government (whenever and wherever you can) will gain traction.

Karl, I must say that I agree with Daniel Friberg here, that your analysis errs regarding Muslims. Muslims have as yet little or no power of their own in the European world, but have been conspicuously provided by Leftist elites a police/power vacuum within which to construct a Muslim, anti-Christian, anti-European patriarchy, because that is what Leftist elites want Muslims to do.

The elected governments you mention are not powerless, but rather have power they conspicuously fail to use against Muslims, because they prefer to use it against you and me.

Friberg explains that, if Leftist elites for some reason soon decided that Muslims were too obnoxious, then Leftist elites would and could suppress Muslims, quickly and effectively, with modest effort at modest cost. Muslims in Europe are not very competent, after all, as a rule. That group can hardly park a bicycle straight.

I get that the Muslim patriarchy is outbreeding Leftist elites within European and overseas-Western countries. This is a big problem in the long term, but the Left does not seem too concerned about it, as far as I can tell.

The Left think their memes are unbeatable. They’re still high on their memetic victory over Christianity, and they’re convinced they can do the same to the Muslims any time they please. Whether they’re right or wrong about that, nobody really knows, but they’re awfully confident and complacent about it. We shall see.

I’ve often thought that civil war, when it comes to America, does not come in the classic form or in the Yugoslavian form. It will be an urban construct. It will be fueled by running out of money. Not from the middle class going Galt, but from the ever-increasing demands on entitlements simply overwhelming the ability of the middle class and the debt markets to provide the resources to be transferred. As Bastiat pointed out, when everyone plunders from everyone legally, then there is no law.

The cuts will start gradually, perhaps in the form of failing to keep pace with inflation, or in the form of reduction of services. The inner cities will be hit the hardest, because they depend the most on transfer payments. It will become increasingly necessary for the coalition of the fringes to steal outright, rather than using judicial process, and they will increasingly plunder each other. Services break down and gangs and warlords provide the only sense of stability and security. Gang turf wars predominate.

The middle class increasingly flee the cities. The red states (for lack of a better term) have food, energy, security, stability, and yes, Christianity. The blue states have starvation, chaos, crime, periodic blackouts, fires, and hostility. There will be Islamic enclaves that practice a form of sharia, just as with any other gang. The Islamist versus MS13/cartel wars will b especially brutal, until they reach a stasis. But the violence isn’t red versus blue. It’s blue versus blue.

Our task — and our way out of the place where biological Leninism leads us — is decentralization. Devolution of power to states, counties, and cities. Return of federalism. The red model will work just fine. The blue model is already failing. Look at California.

Christianity alienates actual heterosexual men, especially ones with any traces of testosterone. It’s a religion of submission and surrender. A religion for women, homosexuals and girly-men. A religion for people who enjoy being humiliated. And we’re supposed to believe that such a religion is going to put up a fight?

And they lost it in 1187, decide to launch a crusade to take it back and failed, decided to launch another and ended up sacking Constantinople, which arguably doomed the Byzantines and a Greek Christian Anatolia. Face it Christianity is moribund in the west.

This is kind of important to understand especially for the Deus Volt part of the .Alt Right .
If muscular and militant Christianity isn’t coming back and no one can make it come back, you had better have a plan that takes that into account

People do not need to have a faith to fight anyway, they need an appetite for risk and something to gain or just the cussed desire to see the other guy dead for whatever reason.

Now there are dangerous Evangelicals , young and old, I know some but they universally assume they have more political and social power than they really do. Outside of a few states and some limited success on the abortion issue, Evangelicals are politically rather powerless.

This truly is an outstanding essay. You have cut through a mass of conflicting noise and constructed a reasonable story. What keeps coming to mind is you’ve constructed a “parable”. Good parables are hard to come by and the one you’ve constructed is very, very good. Thank you. I know I’m babbling but I think I’ll remember this essay the rest of my life. I can see how it would apply to all sorts of societal situations.

I hope you’ll write an essay about how to counter this especially in White Women. Anonymous Coward has a really good article on how the Left(r’s) can overnight shift to be the most strident rightest.

AC,”…As the white leftists get excluded by their minority brethren, watch for them to invade the white identity movement, and begin trying to co-opt the white population, turning them against minorities as a proxy army to serve as the white leftist’s protectors. Adolf Hitler the socialist will become Adolf Hitler the ultra-nationalist, ultra white-nationalist, and ultra-American patriot. In part it will be safety, and in part he will be genuinely pissed at the underprivileged who rejected his offer to lead them to victory over his fellow whites…”

It would seem to me that strong, relentless and unyielding push against all that’s pozzed would be the best tactic. Very much like Vox Days’s, and Trumps never backing down to bring about this shift. After all, even if some parts of the Right are wrong, the Left hardly has a great grasp on reality. Best they chose our unreality rather than theirs.

One of your best. The eternal current year as well as Brazilification are both unacceptable futures, so how do we overcome biological Leninism? I believe it has to start with the formation of a parallel society with it’s own status system.

Consider yourself lucky i guess, our PM is currently on an apology tour, the chief recipients being the “indigenous” but also gays. in actual fact, our nation is now engaged in a super weird “indigenous” fetish. the steady drum beat of “indigenous” people are the best at everything and we must worship them is goddamn ridiculous. I’m not kidding when I say that it’s pervasive and somewhat disturbing because they clearly are not doing well as a group so their wisdom on all things is questionable to say the least. i used quotation marks on indigenous because in my life time they’ve gone from natives to native Canadians to first nations people, to aboriginal peoples to indigenous. also – we have human rights tribunals which are basically Stalinist kangaroo courts designed to punish normal people… anyway, Sweden has nothing on Canada! “safe injection sites” beside where kids play in Toronto made me move uptown with the rich people, most of whom are Indian and Chinese. FUCK. if you were to look into Canada you would find a rich supply of material to write about. we are truly run by deranged Stalinists. sad as hell. what could have been… it’s sad that on a daily basis i mumble to myself that I’m glad my Nazi defeating grandfathers died before they had to see what they fought to defend.

Phenomenal article – I already read it twice and saved it to Evernote.

One point: the US “coalition of the fringes” seems inherently unstable, unlike the new elite of the Soviet Union. In 10 or 20 years, Ds may be able to turn both Texas and Florida blue – but what then? Would Jews stay in, given the hostility from Blacks? What do Blacks and Hispanics have in common? Gays and muslims, etc.? After the ‘victory’, how would the leaders of big tech companies that are now so uniformly progressive react to state’s demand for real change in hiring (why should the COE of Google always be a white male; why are young black men with Comp. Sci. degree from local community colleges not being hired by Google, and so on)? So, long term, I’m not as pessimistic as you are.

You are not the first to notice that the politics of someone somehow always coincide with his personal self-interest. Gustave Le Bon and the Unabomber have written on the topic.

Precisely because it is so obvious, the art of politics has always been the art of hiding your ulterior motives behind more or less convincing “plausible deniability” devices, usually involving the notion that what is good for me would actually be good for everyone too.

Political movements fail when too many people see through the shit.

For instance, white nationalism doesn’t go anywhere because it is actually a bad deal for most whites.

The policies of white nationalism are not a bad deal, but the politics are. Most white people are well off and don’t directly suffer any bad consequences from the browning of the nation. Whites don’t compete with the browns, they compete with other whites (and jews & asians), and they can use the browns to virtue signal their generosity without giving an advantage to their competitors. White nationalists are for the most part whites who are so dysfunctional that they have to compete with browns, and are currently useful idiots at best.

In short, saying that you are competing with browns is stating boldly that you are powerless and incompetent, it’s a losing proposition.

There’s also the fact that racism is not a good moral system. You can’t really raise kids on racism or become an accomplished professional on racism. Racism tends to lead to narcissism, laziness and self-complacency. Contrast this with Christianity, which holds that every man is a maggot and must discipline himself constantly. Christianity is more likely to breed a Harvard MD or a West Point graduate than racism.

HP Lovecraft was probably an example of the best possible product of a worldview centered around racism, I feel. It proved fruitful artistically for him, but he was not a very functional person in many ways.

He was racist about Loathsome Ancient Ones From Beyond, right?
What do you guys mean by “racism”? Some kind of “I’m great just cuz I’m White” thought?
That’s not what Progs mean by “racism” — they mean “acceptance of HBD”.
Ricksean, most of the White People I know aren’t doing well at all.
Just look at the new Justice League — five out of those six superheroes are White and NONE of them have kids! (Okay, maybe Batman’s the only White one, technically, but still ….”)

No, he seemed to fear becoming impure if he ate Mexican food through some acquired taint if I recall from his letters with Howard. He was a sensitive man who with a host of fears of the alien and the sexual(his wife mentioned “The very mention of the word sex seemed to upset him”), but I honestly believe it contributed greatly to his writing. Greatness and madness are often close.

“…Most white people are well off and don’t directly suffer any bad consequences from the browning of the nation…. White nationalists are for the most part whites who are so dysfunctional that they have to compete with browns, and are currently useful idiots at best…”

You remind me of this guy I argued with about mass immigration and section 8. He said,”well I won’t live with these people, I’m not dumb, I’ll just move away”. Never mind that one day after you’ve paid for your house and massive section 8 hoard moves into your neighborhood how will you have the money to move? Where at some point will you move to? How much is the opportunity cost of moving constantly as the browns move in and crowd out your life? How much in terms of tax resources will the browns consume that could have been yours?

Your attitude is short sighted. You’d rather call lower class Whites losers and impose cost on them than you would assure you and your children a safer, more prosperous life. What will be the long term cost of all these immigrants? As the Asians take over, just like the Jews, they will use racial preferences to put their people in charge and all the while all you will have is your ego assuring you that,”You’re not like those people”.

“Are most White people well off?” is one question; “Are White people in charge?” is another question. It seems to me that (1) the Overlords are and will remain mainly White with a few Jews thrown in for comic relief, and that (2) most White people are not well off.

“white nationalism doesn’t go anywhere because it is actually a bad deal for most whites.”

This is only true if you never pull back & take a look at from a broader perspective.

Living in a high-trust, homogeneous, low-crime, 100-median-IQ, Eurocentrically-normed society is a GREAT deal for most whites, in fact damn close to ALL whites.

In an all-white or even mostly-white nation, they can live their lives without having to spend the money & resources to insulate themselves from omnipresent crime & dysfunction. They can also be assured of getting efficient service & reliable employees & an honest government & friendly compatriots.

These things are either extremely expensive or non-existent in non-white nations, and even in multicultural ones. So for every white but the top 1% who can exploit diversity effectively enough to avoid its drawbacks, a white nation is a MARVELOUS deal.

If one could gain the sober attention of the world’s several hundred million whites for, say, three minutes, one might just read them the message Hosswire has just written. That would be an excellent use of the time.

In other words, the Lucifer Option. They’d rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.
But it looks like there are at least some people who do want a more homogenous, more white nation. I guess someone could call them too dysfunctional to compete with browns & blacks. Or someone could just call them normal white men who realize that the kakistocracy is always going to freeze them out.
Depending on how many of these guys there are, there might be some status to be gained by a renegade member of the elite who offers to deliver that kind of society to them.
Some might even say that a certain real estate billionaire showman has already done this.

I think it is pretty clear, that people care about status AND quality of life. Being a minority carries some fake status, but I doubt it is of much comfort. More than status, it provides a path into the bureaucracy. I suppose one could make the case that that in turn is what provides status, although that would seem to be just another form of fake status too. How can one be proud of pushing a pencil, and obstructing progress?

But then again, maybe such people are easily satisfied with fakery.

As an amusing aside, my successful, entrepreneurial, Chinese wife recently told me, when house-hunting, “I want to live where the white people live.”

I think I’ve read your Social Module post before, and I’ve definitely seen something like it plenty of times over the years, but this post takes the cake, and then even puts a better one back in place.

Maybe it’s even because of SP theory. A Chinese history post has the potential loss of impact, even just subconsciously, because of a “Well I’m not Chinese” or a “That was a long time ago though” thought that arises even before words are read, and usually never really dispelled. It’s a lot harder to disregard any points at all when there’s a bunch of examples across time and space, along with fairly familiar theory to tie it up.

It certainly appears to explain why Peterson’s appeal. His most powerful phrase for me is “300 million years”. I can’t even grasp what 100 years means; such a phrase doesn’t have any “factual” or “objective” meaning to me. But it’s the phrase that evokes everything else he says, from the tigers to the lobsters to whatever else. It’s the handful of easily memorized and thus chantable sounds and syllables which say “this is how the group (i.e: the world) works”. I didn’t like the title of the post at first, but it did catch my eye, and it does fit the same criteria in retrospect.

This is a fascinating post, and I admit I’d never considered it quite this way before. The approach makes a tremendous amount of sense. But it also, I think, creates some victims we haven’t considered.

Specifically, in a capitalist society, the profitable institutions that have relied upon a broad, nonpolitical audience are damaged – and perhaps irrevocably – when this coalition of the fringes rises to prominence/power.

The NFL is the first thing that comes to mind. There is little doubt the Kaepernick protests, and now the widespread protests, are one factor in the precipitous ratings decline. The political dynamic relating to the protests is fascinating; those who are most offended tend to be patriotic/conservative – a demographic from which the NFL has long drawn huge support.

In my personal experience, those who support the protests and protesters and shout the loudest about how it’s not only their right to protest but that they are also correct in their criticism of the country tend to be lefties who – often, maybe usually – aren’t NFL fans, or aren’t serious NFL fans.

So as the protests continue, and as “traditionalist” (let’s call them) fans stop watching, the slack cannot, will not, be picked up by those who have been the biggest supporters of the protests. The “fringes” aren’t going to start watching, or at least not on a sustained basis.

And so NFL ratings crater, as they have. The NFL’s business model takes a hit specifically because of the activism of the “fringes.”

There are most likely other institutions/businesses affected in this way, the NFL is just what comes to mind right now. Maybe the military, with recent pressure to advance women, LGBT-types and more recently even those with mental health issues, would be another.

I wonder to what extent these institutions/businesses have considered what embracing the “fringes” could mean to their stability and their bottom line. But the means by which the fringes are empowered – social media in particular – guarantees that any complaints about them or demands issued to them are amplified beyond what they once might have been; the “fringes” are obviously emboldened in recent years; and it’s become too easy for the mainstream media to follow up on fringe Tweetstorms/swarms with the “activists say” stories, thus giving the fringes yet another megaphone.

I’m not sure what the way out of this is, other than attempts to sow division within the fringe itself (ratcheting up antipathy toward white or cis “allies,” for example)

Its pretty evident that fringes, especially as they take over leadership roles, can be remarkably incompetent at it – I mean, Hillary Clinton probably did more for Trump with her deplorable comment than anything Trump could have done.

The question is whether the system of loyalty – which is effective – is serviceable enough that it continues to function in its methodology of gaining and maintaining power. For the most part, it does seem like it’ll be so, at least until and if the water and electricity stops running. Tainted water and occasional blackouts would even be acceptable.

I wonder how my ideas would fit into your worldview? https://goo.gl/q4kodC Maybe better than you think if you look at the very end. I especially liked that line, “Intellectuals are the reserve army of the bureaucracy.” Combine it with Karlin’s notion of elite overproduction and you have the ingredients for something creative. After all, life has become a lot better for average human beings and even your cynical worldview does not preclude it from becoming even better. We must work with what we have.

You quoted Moldbug: “in many ways nonsense is a more effective organizing tool than the truth. Anyone can believe in the truth. To believe in nonsense is an unforgeable demonstration of loyalty. It serves as a political uniform. And if you have a uniform, you have an army.”

But does it have to be nonsense? What if it isn’t nonsense but just sounds crazy? For example, “Capitalism is the re-incarnation of Christ.” That should function quite well if connected to the right cause. For instance: https://goo.gl/q4kodC With careers open to talent (see Chapter 4).

In any case you’ll see the case for that seemingly insane—in fact absolutely embarrassing—proposition as I once spelled out in an unguarded moment on Steve Sailer’s blog: https://goo.gl/ersWPd Just Ctrl-F my name.

What are your thoughts on the growing popularity of orthodox Christianity in some alt right circles? Matthew Heimbach for instance. I actually know two guys in real life who converted (baptism and all).

Orthodox Christianity completely rejects the authority of the Western Popes. An orthodox sees Francis as a fraud and heretic, unworthy of any consideration. Which I guess is a good thing when you read his last interviews in the media. By way of consequence it also rejects much of the objective decadence that seeped into Roman Catholicism over the centuries, such as the tolerance of divorce.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in orthodox Christianity that is eugenic or “race realist”. At most, you can find some support for ethno-differentialism.

My personal opinion is mixed. Excellent cadre to marry and raise children who get good grades. But “meh” otherwise. I personally don’t wish to convert, for a lot of reasons that would deserve a very long essay.

Given what Orthodoxy has been historically, I think it’s LARPing, but LARPing is the first step towards a new religion, so I’m sympathetic.

“Excellent cadre to marry and raise good children, but meh otherwise”. Think about this sentence. There is really nothing else that is more important that raising good children. Nothing at all. I understand your feeling, I really do, but in the end that ‘meh’ shouldn’t really matter.

The Serbian Orthodox Church was nationalist; Poland’s Catholicism was too; even Prussian Protestantism was nationalist, as Heinrich Lummer writes in “Deutschland soll deutsch bleiben”. After all, there were no great immigration waves during the times of Christendom. I would not convert to Orthodoxy because of its whacky theology (Theosis especially); I also reject Thomism completely. I prefer Pascal, Kierkegaard, Gómez Dávila and some Augustine, Jerome and Luther (though Luther supported wixing with Turks). They were great Christians.

Eugenics is a necessity, and those who don’t want to be ugly fat hunchbacks like myself, riddled with mental diseases, living at the bottom of society but are anti-eugenics, or, better: pro-dysgenics are dishonest and should shut their mouths. I would simply kill myself if I wasn’t a born-again Christian. I’ll end with some fitting aphorisms by the great Catholic Nícolas Gómez Dávila:

Geneva, the Geneva that Calvin reigns from his sickbed, the Geneva whose shadow extends from the pulpit of Knox to the hallways of the Vatican, the Geneva where a world was formed, had about 12.000 inhabitants in 1560.
The huge modern human masses are not only a problem, but superfluous.

Population growth disquiets the demographer only when he fears that it will impede economic progress or make it harder to feed the masses.
But that man needs solitude, that human proliferation produces cruel societies, that distance is required between men so that the spirit might breathe, does not interest him.
The quality of a man does not matter to him.

Marx may win battles, but Malthus will win the war.

Eugenics appals those who fear its judgment.

No beneficiary of slaves is supporter of birth control.

Depopulate and reforest — first civilizing rule.

The two most pressing problems of the contemporary world: demographic expansion and genetic deterioration are unsolvable.
Liberal principles prevent the solution of the first, egalitarian ones that of the second.

Our last hope lies in the injustice of God.

The modern world will not be punished.
It is the punishment.

Progress is the scourge God has chosen for us.

The importance it attributes to man is the enigma of Christianity.

Christianity is an impudence which we must not disguise as kindness.

What is difficult is not to believe in God, but to believe that we matter to Him.

Thomists and Marxists are able to exchange their personal among each other.

Nothing is more dangerous for faith than to frequent the company of believers.
The unbeliever restores our faith.

Faith – any faith – is lost when it gets mixed up with the faithful.

Whoever wants to know what the serious objections to Christianity are should ask us.
The unbeliever makes only stupid objections.

Ideologies were invented so that men who do not think can give their opinions.

The majority of men have no right to give their opinion, but only to listen.

We should ask the majority of people not to be sincere, but mute.

The ineptitude and folly of the bishops’ and popes’ chatter would disturb us, if we old Christians had not fortunately learned as little children to sleep during the sermon.

The two most insufferable types of rhetoric are religious rhetoric and the rhetoric of art criticism.

A cloud of incense is worth a thousand sermons.

Rites preserve, sermons undermine faith.

“Escapism” is the imbecile’s favorite accusation to make.

Tongues of fire didn’t descend upon the Second Vatican Council, as they did upon the first assembly of the apostles, but a stream of fire – a Feuerbach.

The impertinent attempt to justify “the ways of God to man” transforms God into a frustrated schoolmaster who invents educational games that are both cruel and childish.

When the theologian explains the reason for some act of God, the listener wavers between indignation and laughter.

The human heart does not rebel against God’s will, but against the “Whys” man dares to attribute to Him.

We should not believe in the theologian’s God except when He resembles
the God called on in distress.

The modern Christian feels professionally obligated to act jovially and
jokingly, to show his teeth in a cheerful grin, to profess a slavering
friendliness, in order to prove to the unbeliever that Christianity is not
a “somber” religion, a “pessimistic” doctrine, an “ascetic”
morality. The progressive Christian shakes our hand with the wide grin
of a politician running for office.

One could object to science that it easily falls into the hands of imbeciles, if religion’s case were not just as serious.

Even more boring than work is its appraisal.

Let us beware of discourse where the adjective “natural” without quotation marks abounds: somebody is deceiving himself, or wants to deceive us.
From natural borders to natural religion.

The imbecile does not discover the radical misery of our condition except when he is sick, poor, or old.

Correction: Luther supported race-wixing with Turks, but also supported going to war against the Turks since we now have, he wrote, such strange times that one may reach salvation easier through the use of the sword than by praying, and that dying in battle was better than lying one’s death bad with all kinds of temptations plaguing one. Etc.

Okayyyyy. Though I would say that in the general use of language “religion” includes some sort of transcendence, even in English.

My native language is German, though, and in German you would call a completely immanent belief system a Weltanschauung (world view), not a religion. So as to playing with words, I plead Not Guilty. That definitions matter (very much) is rather a part of my world view. ;-)

I’ll admit to having a slightly non-standard definition, but in my defense the authorities in charge of defining words have for centuries being liberals interested in hiding the absurdity of their worldview, and opposing it to religion as if their stuff is any better.

But yeah, I’ll agree we don’t necessarily need any supernatural stuff. The Chinese did OK for ages.

The Chinese approach is certainly interesting. It seems they try to avoid problems by a certain vagueness -not quite Doublethink, but close.

All 3 major Eastern Religions (Confucianism/Taoism/Buddhism) appear to me to have started as philosophical doctrines, but over time morphed into religions. Or they were interpreted as phiilosophies by the elites and as religions by the commoners.

But yes, up to a point their muddled thinking has served the Chinese well in a practical sense.

Closer to home, Marxism also started as a sort of a philosophy and at least in some countries ended up as a religion, complete with the holy tomb of Ali Saint Lenin, religious holidays, blasphemy laws and the rest. Perhaps one can riff off Clarke and say that any sufficiently advanced philosophy is indistinguishable from religion.

I mean it in the most simple possible way: Philosophy is a science. Which is one of the few propositions on which Aristotle and Bacon would have agreed. And which has rarely, if ever, been contested before mid-19th century or so.

Karl, by your definition, everything is faith. Which means that nothing is. Is that a useful definition?

If you answer, then take care to ground your epistemology: it’s important; you can’t just wave it away. If I may anticipate your answer, then you will ground your answer in what I regard (but you do not regard) to be circular reasoning. That’s okay, there is a long tradition of that (see Hume), but you are advancing an essentially utilitarian argument, an argument that (a) lacks a self-consistent theory of mind; (b) summarily denies that a nonutilitarian argument is possible; and yet, paradoxically, (c) lacks a basis in any properly teleological conception of utility. Now, I got out ahead of you there, and put some words in your mouth, which isn’t fair. You may say that your view is merely descriptive, and that nothing more is necessary; but, oh, I don’t know why I am arguing. We’re not getting anywhere with this.

Your comment does not pass muster in my view. Kant is great, but you ought to try some Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas and Edward Feser, too, sometime. By his own admission, Kant never did read Plato. That was Kant’s problem. He should have done, and you, too.

I noticed this aspect of Progressive Communism before the turn of the Millennium, and I’ve been calling it “Dirt Bag Supremacy.” I had no idea that it was so well grounded in human psychology, though. Now I see the political advantages of elevating the Dirt Bags to Supremacy. I had just assumed that it @$$-holes being @$$-holes and poking the world in the @$$ with a pitch fork just for the sheer joy of it.

Well, with races it0s like with different-density liquids within a container.
If the variation in density isn’t minor… it takes the liquids short to reach their natural reciprocal placement.

When you look at US WikiPedia, the FED, the mainstream media, decisions concerning embassy moves in the Middle East these days, the Nobel Prizes for, literature… it’s only a lesson in fluid dynamics.
This applies to the invention and propagation of Bolshevism, biological Leninism, to the Civil War in Spain, to the bullying of Russia since it started to try being non-subjected…

I think that the many humans for which subjection to who is better equipped to wield power that themselves is the primary psychological calling should enjoy their own subjection, without being criticized.
The few with an aspiration to independence should have it granted likewise. The only sad part is this last thing usually doesn’t happen.

This reminds me of Ron Unz’s theory that the political parties deliberately promote candidates with unexposed scandals in order to keep them in line with the threat of exposure. Maybe the Republicans have to promote actual criminals and perverts because the Democrats have the market cornered on the Coalition of the Fringes.

“Biological Leninism” is essentially what I’ve been calling “Anti-White Communism.” Your terminology might be more technically accurate, but I think my terminology calls it out more for what it is, and makes our people understand that they and their very existence as a people is under siege. The loyalty we seek must be to one another.

“There’s a reason why there’s so many evil fat women in government. Where else would they be if government didn’t want them? They have nothing going on for them, except their membership in the Democratic party machine.”

Evil, fat and sterile. Orlando Patterson explains why palace eunuchs were used in the Chinese and Byzantine Empires. An emperor must always worry that the palace stewards will become ambitious to install their own offspring. the Emperor or Empress need not fear this from a palace eunuch, whose entire social position depends on the favor of the ruler.

The modern version is the barren feminist. I am sometimes temped to pity, watching these underlings expound the party line in that strangulated voice they all seem to have. They have proven their mindless loyalty by sacrificing their families either from abortion or delay past the age of fertility. It is now almost impossible for them to admit that they have destroyed their lives in order to be close to, and utterly dependent on, their powerful patrons.

Yes, it’s dangerous to say “the Emperor has no clothes”. But there’s less danger when there are an awful lot of people saying it, there is a long, established tradition of saying it, and when those saying it are heavily armed. Anyway, danger is not avoided by keeping your mouth shut. Lots of innocent and loyal peons were rounded up in Stalin’s purges.

Hi. I read ur ‘article’ 3 days ago and am still processing. Found it 3hru zmans site what a tangled web. I think there is are nuggets of deep truth.

Today I shared this with someone and also wrote down:

Power, for the sake of power.
Power, for the sake of benevolence.
Power, for the sake of ….
Power….
…
Liberty, for the sake of?
Being alive? Maybe
Dignity? no

My fiancée thinks u don’t understand women and I said I disagree cuz women/men is just a device. She said pedereson understands women better. I said how so and she said listen to him. I went to the u tube video of him and Paglia. At about 30 minutes thru, he is well spoken btw, he references the power.

I think u are correct. It’s just hard to see for some plus when I say ‘power’ it means something else to her. I think

I fear also the tilt of nature leans left till it explodes then it restarts; like in the copybooks.

Loyalty is not orderly, rebels and patriots have a large cross-section. Feudalism kept spawning warring tumors of “more feal than thou” metastasing everywhere.

In Greg Egan’s novel Quarantine there is a poignant depiction of this, as the protagonist, investigating the mischief of some neurology BigCorp, until he finds himself ninja-injected with a nanobot that rewires his brain to feel absolute loyalty towards said BigCorp. Eventually he and others like him ruthlessly take over BigCorp because, well, if absolute loyalty exists then only the absolutely loyal people can be trusted as true representatives. Then they derail everything and in-fight.

What destroyed feudalism in the 19th century was the rise of the American Republic. It was a revolutionary concept that the common man could be trusted with the direction of a nation and a ruling elite was not needed. “It” was the inspiration for the French Revolution and “it” was the inspiration for Marx.

Marx like others tried to take the concept one step further and improve on the principles of classical liberalism that is at the root of the American Republic but ultimately failed. All attempts to institute a Marxist government fail because it does not recognize basic human psychology and hence motivation of individual men and women. A highly centralized state always leads to totalitarianism. It always leads to a corruption of power.

The original intention of the Republic was a de-centralized state and laissez faire capitalism. It is as close to Marx’s pure communism endgame, with the government withering away, as is realistically possible. Marxists are not concerned with the working class; they seek to place themselves in power and rule like the feudal lords of centuries past. They seek to become the new oppressors.

The endgame of Marxists is revolution. Revolutions are almost always bloody and violent. America has a warrior class not unlike Japan and her samurai culture. The American warrior class is opposed to Marxism. A Marxist revolution in America will fail in a bloody and violent manner…

So in other words Amerimutts live in a country that was always Enlightenment Filth. Enlightenment Filth that proceeded to stick its nose into both world wars. Complete with aiding Stalin instead of forcing the Slavs into Serfs like they belong.